270 likes | 368 Views
Forest certification in Estonia. Rein Ahas Hando Hain Peep Mardiste Institute of Geography University of Tartu. Location of Estonia. Area 46 000 km 2 Population 1,4 million 70 % living in cities. B ackground.
E N D
Forest certification in Estonia Rein Ahas Hando Hain Peep Mardiste Institute of Geography University of Tartu
Location of Estonia Area 46 000 km2 Population 1,4 million 70% living in cities
50% is covered with forestsLow use and good management during Soviet regime created high biodiversity
Today - Estonia is harvesting more (13 mil m3) than annual growth (10 mil m3) Annual felling volumes 1990-2002
Liberal forest policy created illegal forestry Area damaged by Stora Enso in April 2004
Society in transition has special aspects • Consumerism • Need to keep several jobs to consume • Speed of life and changes • Low environmental and social awareness
Fragmented landscapes and properties 80% of private lands are less than 10 hectares
Private forests • 60% private forests • Restitution is still ongoing • Overharvesting and illegal logging happens mostly in private lands
State forest • 40% forests belonging to state • State forest is managed by State Forest Management Centre - RMK • RMK has FSC and ISO 14001 certificate since 2002
Important steps • 1995 Certification introduced by env. NGOs • 1997 State Forestry Development Program studied certification • 1998 National working group on forest certification • 1999 NEPcon/Smartwood started in Estonia • 2000 First standard • 2001 PEFC initiative • 2002 State forest FSC certified • 2004 FSC working group endorsed
Why certification emerged? • active support of international and local NGOs • NGOs were dissatisfied about liberal forest policy • national forest policy was seeking for alternatives • certification discussions from neighboring countries • market for FSC products emerged
National working group on forest certification (NWGFC) • 1998 - 2000 • 30 active members • Discussion of FSC principles and criteria
Hard discussions between • Environmentalists • Forest survey specialists (planners) and • Forestry scientists and administrators (silvaculturalists) • Industry and social sector were silent
Main discussion topics • Management plan (need, how detail ect) • Melioration, pesticides, introduced species • Limiting clear-cut management
Basic conflict on concept of spring truce • No forest management during breeding season of birds and animals • Had support from society and opposition from industry
NEPcon / Smartwood in Estonia 1999 • Peter Feilberg started certification in Baltic • Office in Tartu • Russian direction
Market • 800 000 ha certified • 2 700 000 m3 FSC timber annually produced • Only 0,1% is processed as certified • Local market has no idea of FSC - awareness
Problems • Avareness and activity of stakeholders was and is low, this makes all activities difficult • Sceptic foresters and administrators • No coopertaion between land-owners
Effects • Discussion started and introduced different thinking (paradigm) and participation • Market (demand from Western Europe) has impact on producers (CoC) • Image of companies is important
Effects Social – work safety and health care improved • Environmental – biodiversity issues, spring truce, waste management, soil protection • Economic – long term planning and thinking
Conclusions • Certification had positive impact • Environemntal awareness is problem • Need for group certification
Research perspectives • How to measure impacts – quantitative and qualitative methods, indicators • Audit data can be used for analyses • Regular research activities and meetings